Preview — Dracula
by Bram Stoker

Dracula

'Alone with the dead! I dare not go out, for I can hear the low howl of the wolf through the broken window'

When Jonathan Harker visits Transylvania to help Count Dracula with the purchase of a London house, he makes horrifying discoveries about his client and his castle. Soon afterwards, a number of disturbing incidents unfold in England - an unmanned ship is wrecked at Wh'Alone with the dead! I dare not go out, for I can hear the low howl of the wolf through the broken window'

When Jonathan Harker visits Transylvania to help Count Dracula with the purchase of a London house, he makes horrifying discoveries about his client and his castle. Soon afterwards, a number of disturbing incidents unfold in England - an unmanned ship is wrecked at Whitby, strange puncture marks appear on a young woman's neck, and the inmate of a lunatic asylum raves about the imminent arrival of his 'Master'. In the ensuing battle of wits between the sinister Count Dracula and a determined group of adversaries, Bram Stoker created a masterpiece of the horror genre....more

Bogdan ValentinHaha, yes! 400 pages book, ends in one paragraph. It was like the author was being pushed by someone.. "Finish already, we have to go fishing!!…moreHaha, yes! 400 pages book, ends in one paragraph. It was like the author was being pushed by someone.. "Finish already, we have to go fishing!! Everyone is waiting for you! Damn it, Bram, the sun will rise any minute and we're not on the lake by then.." Oh, wait.. (less)

ZakleYou might be confused through out it since it IS an older book. There are a lot of words that are not apart of todays typical language, but I…moreYou might be confused through out it since it IS an older book. There are a lot of words that are not apart of todays typical language, but I absolutely loved it when I first read it. Of course there were a lot of words I didn't know, and I often found myself at a lost, but I do believe that was because I was young when I first read it. Around fifteen or fourteen. It's a great classic though and I do recommend it. (less)

Community Reviews

Here are some thoughts on this book.1. I would have been all OVER this in 1897.2. I would like Van Helsing to be quiet. 3. I can suspend disbelief for the vampires but not for the blood transfusions4. I know it was 1897 and blood types weren't discovered until 1901 (according to my very in-depth research) (wikipedia) but I still cannot get past it5. The Texan would go outside and randomly shoot things for fun, including things sitting on windowsills of windows in rooms where live people were hanHere are some thoughts on this book.1. I would have been all OVER this in 1897.2. I would like Van Helsing to be quiet. 3. I can suspend disbelief for the vampires but not for the blood transfusions4. I know it was 1897 and blood types weren't discovered until 1901 (according to my very in-depth research) (wikipedia) but I still cannot get past it5. The Texan would go outside and randomly shoot things for fun, including things sitting on windowsills of windows in rooms where live people were hanging out, so he was clearly the most realistic character6. VAN HELSING. STOP. 7. Oh cool, another chapter from Mina's POV finally - oh nope it's just Van Helsing talking to her the whole time8. This book is called "Dracula" but it should have been called "Dracula Lite" because he was barely in it after the hilarious first few chapters where Jonathan is complaining about his bad breath9. Why can Dracula control wolves??????? Someone explain this to me10. I want a book about Dracula's sister wives11. I'm pretty sure I can still hear Van Helsing rambling about something off in the distance12. The men in this book were 1000 times more dramatic and emotional than the women which was amazing13. For real Jonathan was crying and groaning all over the place and Mina would just look at him like ".....ok."14. Mina is a boss15. THAT'S NOT HOW BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS WORK. IS SHE A UNIVERSAL RECIPIENT???? YOU DON'T KNOW!!!! OMG.

EDIT, JULY 2, 2017: Hello there! Thank you for reading my review of the book, DRACULA (Paperback) by Bram Stoker, which I posted on this website, good reads dot com, two years ago when I read this book and still remembered things about it. It is now 2017, and all I remember at this point in my life is that in this book there is a guy named Van Helsing who talks very much, and sometimes there's a vampire named Dracula who has bad breath. I can only assume that is why everybody hated him so much.

If you feel the urge to leave me any type of comment about what I said two years ago about the blood transfusions, please take a quick moment to check if your "well, actually" mansplaination re: this series of jokes has already been posted by someone else. I have received many of these already, and I would not want you to waste your valuable time repeating someone else's very helpful and insightful comment!

If your comment is something like, "you are stupid for thinking wikipedia is reliable," I greatly appreciate you informing me of this. I definitely included that thing about wikipedia as a sarcastic joke about how little research I did on this topic, but it is still nice to be reminded that the people who read my good reads dot com reviews are very, very smart, so much smarter than me, so extremely helpful, and definitely able to comprehend my sense of humor.

In conclusion, thank you for reading my review of the book Dracula on good reads dot com!

edit 2/22/19hey fam. y'all have got to stop tryna fact check me. it is 2019. my balance of fucks to give cannot be wasted on goodreads commenters who don't get the joke. take your "well actually" energy to twitter where it belongs (easier to mute/block)...more

Dracula: the very name instantly brings to mind visions of vampires, stakes, garlic and crucifixes. But when one bothers to read the novel they may realise how twisted modern vampire fiction has become.

Vampires are not meant to exist as heroes. Go back a few hundred years and men believed truly that the vampire was a real immortal, cursed to quench his undying thirst with a living mortal’s blood. The very idea of a blood drinker inspires the very image of a villain to the mind. And that is whatDracula: the very name instantly brings to mind visions of vampires, stakes, garlic and crucifixes. But when one bothers to read the novel they may realise how twisted modern vampire fiction has become.

Vampires are not meant to exist as heroes. Go back a few hundred years and men believed truly that the vampire was a real immortal, cursed to quench his undying thirst with a living mortal’s blood. The very idea of a blood drinker inspires the very image of a villain to the mind. And that is what the titular character of this novel is.

The word novel is not used lightly, but one could also write that this is a collaboration of journals, letters and papers. For that is how Bram Stoker chose to fashion his famous novel (in epistolary form). And the different viewpoints through each journal serve to create suspense which suits the gothic tone of the novel perfectly.

In all it is a macabre novel that serves to make the reader reflect upon good and evil. The vampire to me is nothing more than an indication of man’s own cursed nature and that unless he is delivered he must suck life from others around him. Ultimately only the righteous can destroy the darkness that serves to drain life.

The Rest of this Review has been moved to my new site: The Write Stuff. Visit my site to read the remainder of the review and any new reviews....more

I find Victorian horror so interesting because it’s a clear reaction to social norms of the time, to the buttoned-down and repressed social climate of the time, to the “new moral standards” of the church and the new questions brought up and hidden away by scientific thought. But under the fabric of late Victorian society lay wide ranges of change; the increased marriage rate and idea of the domestic sphere for women giving way to the New Woman, the upper class vs. lower class divide giving way tI find Victorian horror so interesting because it’s a clear reaction to social norms of the time, to the buttoned-down and repressed social climate of the time, to the “new moral standards” of the church and the new questions brought up and hidden away by scientific thought. But under the fabric of late Victorian society lay wide ranges of change; the increased marriage rate and idea of the domestic sphere for women giving way to the New Woman, the upper class vs. lower class divide giving way to a new middle class. With the growth of the economy came new ideas of English excellence; with the growth of scientific thought, scientific racism.

Literature, as is usual, struggles to react. With a growing counterculture in literature came the reaction to such; at the trial of author Oscar Wilde, passages from his only novel were read to prove that he liked men. Soon after, Bram Stoker, formerly his acquaintance, began writing Dracula.

So the result is that this book is SO fucking weird because if you look at the subtext for more than a second it’s Bram Stoker’s internalized homophobia playing out, but then he accidentally makes every single one of his characters read as deeply bisexual.

We’ll get into this in a second, as I did promise I was going to weave in excerpts from my essay on queercoding in this novel (“my favorite paper you have written for my classes” -english teacher who has had me for a year). But first, I want to promo this book to you:

✔I absolutely loved the very wide cast of characters. Jonathan is such a good man and I’d honestly trust him with my life. Mina is absolutely iconic on every way. Also, this bechdel test passes, although just barely, as Mina and Lucy talk about men a lot more than their very lesbian natures would imply. Lucy is a fantastic character as well - she’s just trying to live her life and date three men and one woman at the same time, and becomes a demon for her struggles. She was too iconic for Victorian literature, clearly. Even side characters like Quentin are endearing - oh, by the way, Quentin is an actual unironic parody of Americans, and I find that hilarious.

✔And the other thing about this book is that it’s really creepy. The atmosphere is absolutely spellbinding, the epistolatory narrative perfect to create a sense of tension and foreboding. While all of the characters have some amount of common sense, we are given information they often are not - we see the dark side in otherwise innocuous details. Lucy’s section is honestly the most terrifying of the entire book in the best way.

So let’s talk about queercoding, because that is what I ended up analyzing about this novel. I just want to introduce that with this actual quote from Jonathan Harker’s point of view, referring to Dracula:

“How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you’ll have to deal with me.” The fair girl, with a laugh of ribald coquetry, turned to answer him: —“You yourself never loved, you never love!” Then the count turned, after looking at my face attentively, and said in a soft whisper: —“Yes, I too can love; you yourselves can tell it from the past. Well, now I promise you that when I am done with him you shall kiss him at your will. Now go! go! I must awaken him, for there is work to be done.”

I actually cannot overstate enough that this book is a very weird reading experience. Bram Stoker waffles back and forth between finding Dracula terrifying and finding him fascinating; the characters both fear him and pity him. As with a previous influential vampire of the time, he represents the fear of reverse colonization and the fear of sexuality at once. Indeed, it is widely believed that Stoker’s inspiration for this character was a man he knew and cared for deeply. (I find this alternately sad and interesting.)

But I don’t think Dracula is meant to represent one man - he is a stand-in for the fears and fascination Stoker felt over Victorian society, over the new status quo, over himself.

Queercoding does not mean a character is gay, necessarily, or villainized specifically because they are gay - it simply means that the character falls into audience stereotypes of queer people. This tends to occur via three major avenues: 1) flamboyant or “feminine” bodily presentation in men or “masculine” presentation in women; 2) association with sex, often in a lewd or perverted way; and 3) explicit or implied same sex attraction. This happens with the character of Dracula… a lot in this novel. Dracula is thin-bodied, often associated with sexual imagery, and definitely does not have platonic feelings for Jonathan Harker.

Towards the end of the novel, we even receive this lovely line: “your girls that you all love are mine already; and through them you and others shall yet be mine – my creature, to do my bidding and to be my jackals when I want to feed” (365). In this context, Dracula seems to be expressing attraction to women as a means of getting to their men.

In the time Bram Stoker was writing, the audience would have associated gender noncomformity with gayness; thus, a character who presented as gender noncomforming would typically be presented as bad. Gay, bad, straight, good. Yet while Stoker certainly plays with the trope of the queercoded villain, the message of Dracula is not quite so black-and-white.

Mina and Lucy each, despite often having roles in the domestic spheres, end up wielding far more power within the books than male characters, and Mina especially is often coded as breaking away from gender norms of the time. She is presented more as the more practical member of her relationship with Jonathan and the better planner, a role that would typically go towards the male partner. She is explicitly described as having a “man’s brain” as a compliment. Mina is also fairly easy to read as queer herself: her relationship with Jonathan is strangely sexless, she is described as “staring at a very beautiful girl” multiple times and I’m me so I read into that, and perhaps most glaringly, her relationship with Lucy is easy to read as having romantic undertones; “oceans of love and millions of kisses,” Lucy writes to her friend (117).

I really hesitated to put this in the review, because it sounds so weird out of context, but there is also a scene where Mina is forced to drink Dracula’s blood. The imagery is that of corruption, with Mina’s “white nightdress” being “stained with blood.” Metaphorically, this suggests that Mina, above all of his victims, carries a ‘piece’ of him — the ‘purest’ character of the novel losing her spiritual purity to the queercoded villain. The audience expectation is surely that she will fight against her inner darkness [read: queerness] in order to defeat Dracula. Yet Mina’s newfound strength is not entirely presented in a negative light; in fact, Mina’s new mind-reading powers (which, yeah, are very plot-device-y) serve as the means by which Dracula is eventually defeated. While Dracula is too far gone to live a happy life, perhaps characters like Mina, and for that matter Jonathan, are not.

All this is to say that vampires are gay now, and also apparently Katie McGrath played Lucy once and she was and in love with Mina, and Mina was Heterosexual, and honestly that’s just so completely not valid. Mina Harker is sapphic and I do not accept slander. @NBC I am horrified

Managed to finish this :) Second time studying, but first successful read-through.I enjoyed it more this time around, mainly because I actually read the last quarter or so of the book, which was the most enjoyable in my opinion.

1. It is a really great and creepy story that deserves classic status2. Everything is repeated soooooo much without any obvious benefit.

Here is actual footage of Bram Stoker writing this novel:

If Stoker had just got to the point, this book would have been much more exciting and suspenseful. I understand the exact same mysterious thing happens night after night. I understand that Dracula has some boxes of dirt. I get that you brought Winchester rifles along for protectiTwo things about this book:

1. It is a really great and creepy story that deserves classic status2. Everything is repeated soooooo much without any obvious benefit.

Here is actual footage of Bram Stoker writing this novel:

If Stoker had just got to the point, this book would have been much more exciting and suspenseful. I understand the exact same mysterious thing happens night after night. I understand that Dracula has some boxes of dirt. I get that you brought Winchester rifles along for protection. Each of these things was repeated ad nauseam throughout the book. Talk about killing the pace - by the time the gruesome scares came I was very disengaged.

Also, funny thing about this book as a horror story - it must be the grandfather of heading up the stairs to hide instead of running outside or cutting through the graveyard shortly after hearing a serial killer is loose. They keep leaving people alone even though those people are repeatedly attacked when they are left alone. Then, when they finally insist on guarding someone, that person insists that they need no one but God to guard them!? Seems like so far God had not been interested in protecting, so why count on him starting now!?

So three stars because it is a classic and I like the story. I especially like Lucy's suitors - their gung ho manliness amuses me. But the repetition and the illogical behavior in the face of a bloodsucking monster are the cause of the removal of a couple of stars....more

Dracula is, of course, one of the most renowned horror stories, and the most well-known vampire novel. Bram Stoker set the ground rules for what a vampire should be, and set the benchmark for all other writers of the vampire afterwards. Indeed, if tyrannical villains are a necessity of Gothic fiction then Count Dracula is the father of all gothic villains, in spite of it being one of the last Gothic fiction novels to be written. It’s a work of genius that his presence is felt so strongly in theDracula is, of course, one of the most renowned horror stories, and the most well-known vampire novel. Bram Stoker set the ground rules for what a vampire should be, and set the benchmark for all other writers of the vampire afterwards. Indeed, if tyrannical villains are a necessity of Gothic fiction then Count Dracula is the father of all gothic villains, in spite of it being one of the last Gothic fiction novels to be written. It’s a work of genius that his presence is felt so strongly in the novel with him appearing in the flesh so rarely.

"His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils, with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth. These protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale, and at the tops extremely pointed. The chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.

The atmosphere of the novel is unmistakably gothic. It is impossible to talk about Dracula without mentioning the Gothic; the two are one and the same. The decaying castle in which the book begins is testimony to the eeriness that follows. The "damsel in distress" motif appears quite often in Gothic literature, and none so much as Dracula. Mina and Lucy are both damsels at some point, and even Harker himself can be seen as one at the start when he is rescued by his wife that has a “man’s brain.” It’s quite a subversion of the standard gender roles, at this point, and quite funny really.

On initial inspection the plot of the book can be summed up in a few short sentences: Dracula wishes to create more vampires in Victorian London; his attempts are thwarted and he and his kind are exterminated. But, the novel is so much more than that. It represents Victorian fears and fancies; it is a comment on women’s position in society and underpins their sexual desires (and perhaps fears.) It suggests a struggle between modernity and science with religion and superstition. It harbours the effect of Darwinian thought on man as Dracula himself represent the idea of “survival of the fittest.” The undertones of sexuality and disease that occur so frequently symbolise the time in which it was written. Each one of these has been a topic for commentaries on Dracula, and academic essays.

Indeed, the extrinsic value of this novel is incredibly high. Bram Stoker also explores the theme of sanity with many of his characters, not just Renfield. At some point, every character wonders whether their dealings with the Count are born from some mental deficiency rather than a paranormal encountering with the villain. This clashes the Victorian realism view with the paranormal events that occur in the novel. There are also issues of identity, and how this is affected by transgression. It can further be seen as an allegory for religious redemption and a comment on colonisation.

I think I’ve said enough; if I say anything else I will break my “500 words a review” rule. As you can probably tell I’m quite passionate about this book: it is brilliant; at this point, I can honestly say that Dracula is one of my favourite novels of all time: I just love it. I might even write my dissertation on it and Gothic Literature.

Shockingly, not a whole hell of a lot of vampire stuff up in this bitch.Mostly, it read like a dull travelogue with lots of emotions like bro-love flowing around. And all the men loved all the women, platonically or otherwise, to the point they were willing to give their lives for whichever lucky lady was getting snacked on by the evil Dracula at the time.It was quite the love fest. <--I'm not buying it, Stoker!

And Dracula?Not since Gary Olman's beehived old woman portrayal have I been less s

Shockingly, not a whole hell of a lot of vampire stuff up in this bitch.Mostly, it read like a dull travelogue with lots of emotions like bro-love flowing around. And all the men loved all the women, platonically or otherwise, to the point they were willing to give their lives for whichever lucky lady was getting snacked on by the evil Dracula at the time.It was quite the love fest. <--I'm not buying it, Stoker!

And Dracula?Not since Gary Olman's beehived old woman portrayal have I been less scared of this character.

Welcome to my home. Allow me to get you some Entenmann's coffee cake whilst you peruse my garage sale knick-knack collection and trip over my cats...

So, I've come to realize that very few of the classic characters or stories even remotely resemble what you think they will based on their modern counterparts. And in my uneducated opinion, most classics just aren't all that much fun to read. They're boring and filled up with tedious shit that I don't care about, and certainly don't want to read about. <-- Scenery, weather, random feelings about the scenery or weather, etc..I guess back in the day it was high fun to take walks, look at the landscape, and then go back home and write about it in your diary. And while I'm sure that sounds like heaven to some people who yearn for simpler times, the idea of reading about the nonsense of someone else's daily life makes me want to scratch my eyes out.

Something I was surprised by, although in retrospect I shouldn't have been, was all the religious undertones in the story. Ok, yes. I knew Dracula was evil and couldn't be near crosses and whatnot, but I didn't think about this being a casually religious story about saving souls from damnation.

Which, I mean, it's not like it was any fault of the vampires that they were dammed. At one time or another, they had all been humans who were targeted by another vampire as a snack. Vicious cycle and all that.And poor Lucy seemingly ended up a chew toy simply because she was a sleepwalker.Perhaps the moral of the story is that you need to make sure you aren't wandering around on moors at night so you don't get spotted by anemic monsters?

Speaking of Lucy, did anyone else notice how incredibly fucking lucky she was that every single guy in their group was a compatible blood type for her? All those blood transfusions! None of them even remotely hygienic or safe. Forget supernatural demons who turn into bats - those transfusions were the scariest shit in this entire book.

Ok. There were a lot of characters and POV switches. Again, most of what they were saying wasn't all that interesting, so it made me doubly happy that I decided to go with the audiobook version of Stoker's tale.

If I'm being 100% honest here, I probably zoned out a few times and daydreamed about when I needed to get the oil changed in my car or what we were having for dinner. But this is one of those books with a lot of superfluous information, so I don't think it hurt anything. I got the gist of it all ok without hanging on every word.

Be warned, the first half of this book is unbelievably dull. Mina writes in her diary about how she fretts over Jonathan's lack of letters from Transylvania & how hard it is to keep Lucy from wandering out the door at night, Lucy gets mysteriously ill & her fiancee gets worried, and the doctor dude (John Seward) moons over Lucy & watches one of his psychotic patients eat bugs. Renfield, being the only character in the book that doesn't want to talk about friendship & loyalty every five minutes, was by far my favorite. <--give him a kitten already, Doc!

The second half of the book was only slightly more engaging to me, but at least there was a bit of urgency to it at that point. Van Helsing was onto Dracula, so garlic was being thrown over everything, stakes were being handed out like candy, and anything pertinent was being kept from Mina so as not to upset her delicate sensibilities. And then when that backfired spectacularly, they cut her into the loop and she was able to do an old-timey version of what a competent woman looked like. They even compared her brains to that of a man! <--I love these old books. Really.

And what about Dracula?Well, he was sort of this shadow figure that lurked around the edges of the book. You never really meet him. I know, right?! What about the whole Vlad the Impaler thing? How he fixated on Johathan & Mina for some reason? Buzzz! Nope.

Ok, get this: Dracula had been sort of like a special needs zombie who was finally learning stuff - like math...and how to employ minions to carry his dirt around for him. Apparently, up to this point, he had just been harassing his neighbors and nibbling on Romanian women. This whole thing with Lucy & Mina was supposed to be his bid at going global. Thank god for Van Helsing and his wacky foreign-man knowledge of urban legends.

I guess one of the oddest things that I realized about this horror story was that when Lucy & Mina started turning toward the dark side, they got sexy. Yeah. Like, that was how you could tell they were creatures of the dammed. The men got all freaked out and weepy because their sweet, mild-mannered gals lost their wholesome looks and became wanton hussies with throaty voices and pouty lips. Holy shit. If that doesn't say something about how wackadoo things used to be, I don't know what will. Innocence or else!

Anyway. This wasn't really a fun read but I'm glad I can finally say I've managed to put it behind me. Plus, it's one of those weird little windows into the past that reminds you things aren't as bad as they could be. I'd definitely recommend listening to the audio version with Tim Curry & Alan Cumming if you decide to go that route. The entire voice cast of this one really helped make it palatable for someone like myself who doesn't have the fortitude to read classics on their own....more

'Welcome to my house. Come freely. Go safely. And leave something of the happiness you bring!'

These are pretty much the first words spoken to Jonathan Harker, one of the heroes of Bram Stoker's Dracula, upon his arrival at Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania, just minutes after a nightmare journey through the landscape of gothic horror: darkness, howling wolves, flames erupting out of the blue, frightened horses. Within a few days of his arrival, Harker will find himself talking of the Count''Welcome to my house. Come freely. Go safely. And leave something of the happiness you bring!'

These are pretty much the first words spoken to Jonathan Harker, one of the heroes of Bram Stoker's Dracula, upon his arrival at Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania, just minutes after a nightmare journey through the landscape of gothic horror: darkness, howling wolves, flames erupting out of the blue, frightened horses. Within a few days of his arrival, Harker will find himself talking of the Count's 'wickedly blazing eyes' and 'new schemes of villainy' and have some hair-raising encounters with the man who is now the world's most famous vampire: 'The last I saw of Count Dracula was his kissing his hand to me, with a red light of triumph in his eyes, and with a smile that Judas in hell might be proud of.' Several adventures involving sharp teeth, mirrors, garlic, crucifixes, bloody-mouthed corpses and big stakes will ensue.

The above quotations should make it abundantly clear what kind of book Dracula is. It's sensation fiction, written nearly half a century after the heyday of that genre. It's a cross between an epistolary novel, a detective novel and a save-my-wife story, and it's full of scares, horror and disgust, all described in a lurid tone that befits the subject: the living dead. Or the Un-Dead, as the book's other hero, my countryman Van Helsing, calls them.

Sadly, Van Helsing is one of my main problems with the book. While I love his heroism, his 'Let's-do-it' attitude and his unceasing struggle for Mina's soul, I find him entirely unconvincing as a Dutchman. I wish to God (with a crucifix and everything!) that I could switch off my inner linguist and appreciate the story for its narrative qualities rather than its linguistic aspects, but Stoker has Van Helsing indulge in so many linguistic improbabilities ('Are you of belief now, friend John?') that it quite took me out of the story, again and again and again. I'm aware this is not a problem that will bother many readers, but I for one dearly wish Stoker had listened to some actual Dutchmen before making the hero of his story one. Then perhaps he also would have refrained from making the poor man mutter German whenever he is supposed to speak his mother tongue. ('Mein Gott' is German, Mr Stoker. I mean, really.)

Linguistic inaccuracies aside (there are many in the book), Dracula has a few more problems. For one thing, the bad guy doesn't make enough appearances. Whenever Stoker focuses on Dracula, the story comes alive -- menace drips off the pages, and the reader finds himself alternately shivering with excitement and recoiling in horror. However, when Dracula is not around (which is most of the second half of the book), the story loses power, to the point where the second half of the book is actually quite dull. In addition, the story seems a little random and unfocused. Remember the 1992 film, in which Dracula obsesses about Mina Harker (Jonathan's wife) because she is his long-lost wife reincarnated? That conceit had grandeur, romance, passion, tragedy. And what was more, it made sense. It explained why Dracula comes all the way from Transylvania to England to find Mina, and why he wants to make her his bride despite the fact that she is being protected by people who clearly want him dead. In the book, however, Mina is merely Jonathan's wife (no reincarnation involved), a random lady Dracula has sunk his teeth into, and while this entitles her to some sympathy, it lacks the grand romantic quality the film had. I guess it's unfair to blame an author for not thinking of an improvement film-makers later made to his story, but I think Stoker rather missed an opportunity there.

And then there's the fact that Stoker seems to be an early proponent of the Robert Jordan School of Writing, meaning he takes an awful lot of time setting the scene, only to end the book on a whimper. The ending to Dracula is so anticlimactic it's rather baffling. Did Stoker run out of paper and ink? Did he want to finish the story before Dracula's brides came and got him? I guess we'll never know.

Still, despite its many flaws Dracula is an exciting read (well, the first half is, anyway), and Stoker undeniably left a legacy that will last for centuries to come. In that respect, Dracula deserves all the praise that has been heaped on it. I still think it could have been better, though. Much better....more

I believe this may be the edition I read "first". This is an amazing book. I've read reviews by those who disagree and reviews by those who hated the format. But I was swept up in it the first time I read it as a teen and have been every time since.

My advice is don't worry about all the psychological baggage that has been tacked on over the years...and please don't confuse the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with the actual plot, story, and characters in the book. It doesn't remotely resemble theI believe this may be the edition I read "first". This is an amazing book. I've read reviews by those who disagree and reviews by those who hated the format. But I was swept up in it the first time I read it as a teen and have been every time since.

My advice is don't worry about all the psychological baggage that has been tacked on over the years...and please don't confuse the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" with the actual plot, story, and characters in the book. It doesn't remotely resemble the book and the title has galled me since that movie came out. The book is far, far better.I believe it's worth noting that a lot of the psychological baggage that has been attached to this volume probably tells you more about the ones attaching it than the book.

This book creates a horror atmosphere that has been copied constantly over the years but never quite captured again. You'll be experiencing with Harker the castle and what he faces there. Battling the Count in England...and the terror of the ship's crew that carried his earth boxes across the sea, all will stay with you. Again let me urge you no matter how well any movie has been done, if the movie Dracula is the only one you know, you haven't met the proto-vampire who resides in this book. He/it still walks through literature and even more in the dark fears that lurk in the back of our minds when we're alone on a stormy night or we have to walk alone past that old rundown graveyard (not cemetery) where the city has never gotten around to installing those street lights.

This isn't Twilight, nor is it Buffy the vampire Slayer, there aren't any friendly, helpful, romantic vampires here. (None sparkle either) There is quite probably a reason (or maybe more than one) why we wish so badly to laugh at this book. It does what it does very, very well...and that's be frightening.

This book is a classic that has been around for over a hundred years..there's a reason for that.

"We" just read this in the Supernatural Readers group...and I still like it. LOL...more

I was rather disappointed by this classic. It started out with promise, especially the Jonathan Harker bits. Then all the male characters descended into blubbering worshippers of the two female characters, and by the end of the novel, I was wishing Dracula could snack on all of them and be done with it. I kept having to put it aside and read chapters in between other books, but I managed to finish it at last.

"There is reason that all things are as they are, and did you see with my eyes and know with my knowledge, you would perhaps better understand. [...] But there are things that you know not, but that you shall know, and bless me for knowing, though they are not pleasant things."

Nothing lasts forever.

Or so they say... at least for this particular being with protuberant teeth itching for yet another slice of an extra rare slab of steak and some bloody juice.

Isn't it a wonder that, once, there w

"There is reason that all things are as they are, and did you see with my eyes and know with my knowledge, you would perhaps better understand. [...] But there are things that you know not, but that you shall know, and bless me for knowing, though they are not pleasant things."

Nothing lasts forever.

Or so they say... at least for this particular being with protuberant teeth itching for yet another slice of an extra rare slab of steak and some bloody juice.

Isn't it a wonder that, once, there was this great and noble race, full of humanity and yet they become a blight upon the land, transforming into the deadly scourge that blots out all hope and becoming the very figure that we dread and detest?

"Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? But there are things old and new which must not be contemplate by men’s eyes, because they know – or think they know – some things which other men have told them."

If you were to read the haunting subtexts that lie within this novel, it's imminently disturbing. Is it enough that we create our own monsters or that we are monsters ourselves? For if humans were to be given these: immortality, power, youth, and ever-lasting beauty, the world would eventually plunge into never-ending darkness. Acquire the lot of them and what you will find is a soul devoid of humanity, only to be filled eventually with malice and greed. Stare at the mirror and one would hardly see any reflection at all. Monsters exist and they do come in many seductive forms, one of them is but the nosferatu. Soon you'll be mesmerised by its gaze that you'll eventually drop everything (your pants or knickers included) and submit yourself as a tasty little morsel that robs you of your very essence. Yet again, some fancy the modern version of the vampir like the shining, ever so shimmering Edward Cullen. Hoomans are curiouser and curiouser indeed!

Believe it or not, I am still considering how to best write a 'review' for this, one of my favorite novels of all time.

I annotated this most recent time reading, in the hopes that it would help when it came to composing my final thoughts.

What I am really struggling with is the idea of little ole' me 'reviewing' a masterpiece.

I guess my goal is more to compel people to read this amazing piece of world literature as opposed to providing a critique of Stoker's work. Let me thA true masterpiece.

Believe it or not, I am still considering how to best write a 'review' for this, one of my favorite novels of all time.

I annotated this most recent time reading, in the hopes that it would help when it came to composing my final thoughts.

What I am really struggling with is the idea of little ole' me 'reviewing' a masterpiece.

I guess my goal is more to compel people to read this amazing piece of world literature as opposed to providing a critique of Stoker's work. Let me think on this a while longer. In the meantime, have a gander at this The Lost Boys gif -- a movie greatly inspired by Dracula:

Review or not, I am so happy to have reread this for the 3rd time. Dracula is a book I will continue to reread periodically for the rest of my life.

If you haven't read this yet, please give it a go, it may surprise you. You may think you know this story...

A classic monster tale I have enjoyed before, but could not wait to revisit. Young solicitor Johnathan Harker finds himself travelling through the Hungarian countryside and into Romania, on his way to a castle in the heart of Transylvania. There, one Count Dracula awaits Harker and proves to be an odd, yet amenable, host. Seeking to finalise a land deal in England, Harker and Dracula talk long into the night, though the former feels that therAnother re-read, perfect for Horror Week on Goodreads:

A classic monster tale I have enjoyed before, but could not wait to revisit. Young solicitor Johnathan Harker finds himself travelling through the Hungarian countryside and into Romania, on his way to a castle in the heart of Transylvania. There, one Count Dracula awaits Harker and proves to be an odd, yet amenable, host. Seeking to finalise a land deal in England, Harker and Dracula talk long into the night, though the former feels that there is something odd about his host. It is only when things occur that Harker realises that Count Dracula is nothing like any man he has met before and eventually escapes the confines of the castle. Back in England, Harker’s fiancée, Mina, and her close friend, Lucy, are going through their own ordeals. Lucy Westenra suffers through significant bouts of sleepwalking. The two women travel to the seaside to clear their heads, but Lucy encounters someone the reader knows to be Dracula during one of her night jaunts and is eventually discovered with two minute puncture holes on her neck. Unsure of what to do, Westenra is sent to see Dr. Johnathan Seward, one of her suitors and director of the local mental hospital. When Dr. Seward cannot deduce all of these symptoms, he calls upon the renowned Dr. Abraham Van Helsing in Amsterdam to consult. When Van Helsing arrives and begins some of his early queries, he is highly interested, though cannot be completely sure that he has a diagnosis of yet. Slowly, Lucy begins to fade from this mysterious neck injury and eventually died of her injuries, though her body transforms into a vampire of sorts, paralleling some of the actions Count Dracula is known to have been committing. Van Helsing works with Seward to locate the body and it is at this time that the Dutch doctor deduces that there is something eerie at work. Studying the situation before him, Van Helsing proposes the seemingly barbaric act of driving a stake through Lucy’s heart and then decapitating her, which is the only way to ensure that her spirit will be freed, according to some of his research and ancient lore. Done with that issue, but still needing to resolve the larger concern at hand, Van Helsing gathers a group to hunt down the Count, who seems to have taken up residence in England, and drive him back to Transylvania. Lurking in the dark and gloomy areas of Eastern Europe, Van Helsing prepares for the fight of his life, armed with only the most basic medicaments, in hopes of slaying this monster once and for all. Stoker lays the groundwork for a truly bone-chilling tale that has stood the test of time. I would highly recommend this to anyone who has the wherewithal to delve deep into the heart of a sensational 19th century story of horror and mayhem.

I am still kicking myself that I had not ever read this sensational piece of fiction before last year. Surely one of the early stories that has fostered such a strong tie between Dracula and Hallowe’en, Bram Stoker’s work provides the reader not only with thorough entertainment, but leaves a shiver up their spine every time they enter a dark room. With a cast of powerful characters, Stoker weaves his tale in such a way that the story never loses its momentum. Harker, Seward, and Van Helsing are all well-crafted and provides powerful contrasts throughout the narrative, while Count Dracula is not only eerie in his presentation, but also one of the scariest villains in 19th century literature. There need not be outward descriptions of gore and slaying to get to the root of the suspense in this novel, which seems to differ from much of the writing in the genre today, where gushing blood and guts pepper the pages of every book imaginable. The narrative is also ever-evolving, helped significantly by the journal-based writing that Stoker has undertaken. The reader is transported through the story using these varied perspectives (and some press clippings), rather than a straight delivery of the story from a single point of view. This surely enhances the larger package and does much to provide the reader with even more fright, at certain times. There are surely many stories taking place here, some of which deal directly with the issue at hand (read: Dracula), while others seem to solve themselves throughout the numerous journal entries. Whatever the approach, Stoker captivates the reader such that there is a strong desire to know how it all ends and if Van Helsing lives up to his more colloquial moniker of ‘Vampire Hunter’. I wish to add for those who wish to take the audiobook approach, as I have done, the Audible version, with a full cast (including Alan Cumming, Tim Curry, and John Lee), adds yet another dimension to this story and should not be discounted.

Kudos, Mr. Stoker, for such a riveting piece. I can only hope to find the time to read some of your other work, as well as that of your descendants, who seem to want to carry the torch and provide more Dracula for the modern reader.

Dracula, the book, struck a chord with me. In it was a fight between good and evil. Modern vampires have great seduction powers. I never liked that. I also didn't like vampires in many Urban Fantasy books. The Hollows series spring to mind. The greatest change in the villainous vampires arises in Anne Rice's books. It was a perfect case study of an idea done to the death.

In Dracula, several people record their impressions. I 'pretend' to know that the women in the books, Lucy and Mina, have theDracula, the book, struck a chord with me. In it was a fight between good and evil. Modern vampires have great seduction powers. I never liked that. I also didn't like vampires in many Urban Fantasy books. The Hollows series spring to mind. The greatest change in the villainous vampires arises in Anne Rice's books. It was a perfect case study of an idea done to the death.

In Dracula, several people record their impressions. I 'pretend' to know that the women in the books, Lucy and Mina, have the same voice. Maybe the men are slightly different. They possess greater vocabulary, such as Lord Godalming's, and Jonathan Harker's recollections. Van Helsing, being a foreigner has his mistakes in grammar, and therefore has the most unique voice.

Throughout the book, we don't see the vampire Dracula triumph much. Except maybe when he turns Lucy into an undead. But even then, through the guiding hands and the knowledge of van Helsing, she is freed from her shackles. But Jonathan escapes from his imprisonment. And the vampire cannot settle in London. He was found out by our 'A-team' and had to flee for his life. He expresses baffled malignity.

It is the testament to Bram Stoker's neatness that I could follow most of the story. And I'm in awe of his mind, which chronicles the entire story via journal entries (or phonograph recordings in the case of John Steward), all of which are dated. I don't mean outdated, but dated, day after day. And I mourned the death of Quincy Morris, gallant to the end, dying with a smile on his lips.

The entire book defies what happens in movies and series (of which latter I've watched only True Blood). Most people don't read books regularly. So their idea of the vampire comes from horror movies. And Boris Karloff and especially Bela Lugosi as vampires are etched in the minds of most people. I don't think cinephiles will get any influence from the 1992 movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola. That was a mess. The book still stands proud. As it should. Thus ends my review on 02 Sep 2018....more

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I highly recommend reading this to any fans of the vampire genre. It is a commitment and investment for the reader, but it is worthwhile. While Dracula is not the 1st vampire novel/story, it has firmly established many of the conventions of the vampire genre. I must say that no movie version I have watched does this justice. Bram Stoker's Dracula might have been a somewhat faithful rendition, but it took unforgivable liberties with the relationship between Mina and Dracula, and downplayed the deI highly recommend reading this to any fans of the vampire genre. It is a commitment and investment for the reader, but it is worthwhile. While Dracula is not the 1st vampire novel/story, it has firmly established many of the conventions of the vampire genre. I must say that no movie version I have watched does this justice. Bram Stoker's Dracula might have been a somewhat faithful rendition, but it took unforgivable liberties with the relationship between Mina and Dracula, and downplayed the deep, abiding love between Mina and Jonathan. In addition, it portrayed Dracula as a seductive, lovelorn and sympathetic character. He is none of these. Dracula is a complete and utter fiend. He is unrelenting evil, and I spent this whole book waiting for him to get what he deserved.

I love the use of letters and correspondence to tell the story. It added an authenticity to this story by revealing the narrative through written details of events. One would think that this would create a distance between the reader and the story, but strangely it does not. Instead it infuses the story with a human element, as we see things unfold through the eyes of the humans who witnessed everything. In addition, the diary entries from Jonathan Harker, Mina Murray (soon to be Harker), Lucy Westenra, and John Seward show the emotional impact of the characters to the horror of Dracula.

Dracula is very much a Victorian work. It is clear what the mores were at that time in reading this story. It is also evident how society is changing as time speeds towards the 20th Century (this book was published in 1896). The attitudes towards women as sweet, beloved creatures who should be loved and adored is very much in evidence. However, Mr. Stoker took the time to show that Mina has a powerful role and usefulness beyond what was expected of her as a woman of her times. In fact, she plays a very pivotal role in this story. Because of the connection between Dracula and herself, she cannot be relegated to a second class citizen in this story. In addition, her view of the situation shows much about how Dracula managed to wreak his reign of terror over poor Lucy and how devastated Jonathan was from his early encounter with Dracula. Mina turns out to be a real heroine in this story. She is very resourceful, and her methods are a great help in the process of understanding what Dracula is, and tracking him down. I felt for her when she was under his thrall, because her love for Jonathan was true, as well as her abhorrence of the evil of Dracula and how it had affected her. Those scenes added a psychological component to the horror element in this book.

This book is not a thrill a minute book. It might be a horror story, but it's also a crime novel, in that the group composed of Drs. Van Helsing and Seward, Jonathan and Mina Harker, Quincy Morris, and Arthur Holmwood spend much time trying to track and defeat their prey, Dracula. Readers should approach this story with this in mind. There are some moments that are truly unnerving and scary, all the same, but they are used with good effect. I would be reading right along, and then something really scary would happen all of a sudden. When my heart rate went back to normal and I fell back into the procedural-type narrative, another creepy moment would occur. Thus, my investment of diligent reading paid off, for those scary moments were quite suspenseful.

Readers should also be aware that the characters tend to be along sentimental lines. They are good, decent people. They cry and feel sorrow. The men might be brave, but they are not afraid to break down and sob out their anguish. I admired each of the protagonists that I was supposed to admire: Mina, Jonathan, John/Jack Seward, Van Helsing, Arthur, Quincy, and the poor, unfortunate Lucy. Each of them invest their heart and life into tracking and destroying the beast. This might strike a modern reader as being too good to be true. But in the historical context, I didn't have trouble with it. I might expect different characterizations for a modern vampire novel.

I found that issues that I had with the recent movie adaptations of Dracula did not exist in this novel. Mina is not played as the good, innocent foil for the sexually adventurous and slightly wanton Lucy. Lucy is a sweet girl who was preyed on and destroyed by Dracula. Mina is not a fickle woman who would abandon her true love for the seductive wiles of the vampire Dracula. That always bothered me about the movies. I didn't see why poor Lucy was deserving of what happened to her. Even if she had been a wanton, I couldn't say she deserved her demise at Dracula's hands. Reading about her decline, death and resurgence as a vampire was extremely difficult, not to mention the effect it had on the loved ones she left behind. Additionally, I dislike how throwaway the love that Mina had for Jonathan is portrayed in the movies. I'm glad it was not this way in the book.

Renfield is a character who has been played for laughs in many of the Dracula adaptations and knockoffs. In the original novel, he is a character to be pitied. He was seduced by Dracula, subsequently losing his reason. There are glimpses of his formerly formidable intellect and sanity, as well as a sense of right and wrong that shone through, causing me to feel sorry for him. Particularly when he warns Seward not to keep him in the Asylum. If only Seward had listened.

Drs. Seward and Van Helsing are physicians and men of science with profound respect for each other, but who tend to look at situations differently. Dr. Seward is very much a rationalist. He tries to approach Lucy's strange illness from a completely scientific perspective, yet Dr. Van Helsing is a learned man who is trained in modern medical science (as well as a pioneer in medicine), but gives credence toward the ancient beliefs, and whose knowledge is shored up by his faith in God. The struggle that Seward faces in having to accept that Lucy's demise is due to a powerful supernatural entity is evident as we read his journal entries. Van Helsing is seen through the descriptions of the diary entries of Mina, Jonathan, and Seward. I found Van Helsing quite the character. Without a doubt, he's my favorite in this book, although I found some of his lines hard to read because of the fact that it is written as though English was his second language (which it was). He is a man of compassion, although with a tendency towards bluntness. I like that he's able to think his way out of difficult situations, but also relies on faith against his demonic enemy.

The movies tend to emasculate Jonathan, but he is a very strong character to have survived his imprisionment in Dracula's castle, with his body and his sanity intact. His conviction to protect Mina at all costs, despite knowing the depths of the power of his enemy speaks to me. He might not be a he-man, but he is definitely a worthy man mate for Mina.

Arthur Holmwood is a noble, yet he is not protrayed as a prig. He is very down to earth, and willing to do his part to destroy Dracula and to see justice done for his beloved Lucy. I admit I tended to picture Cary Elwes (an old crush of mine who played Holmwood in Bram Stoker's Dracula) about 50% of the time. He definitely rose to the occasion, despite the seemingly insane ravings of Van Helsing about Un-dead creatures, and the need to drive a stake through the heart and cut off the head of his beloved.

Quincy Morris embodies the Texan spirit in the very best of ways. His devotion to Lucy and later Mina causes him to risk his life in the struggle against Dracula.

Don't look for a sexy creature of the night in this book. Dracula is a horrid, evil beast. When he meets his demise, I didn't feel one iota of sympathy. I was cheering instead. It's refreshing to read about evil vamps without any charisma for once (and this from a paranormal romance fanatic).

This book is a delicious work to have read. I'm glad I attempted it when I could fully appreciate its genius. I freely admit when I read it in high school, I wasn't ready for it. It took me the better part of the week, but I found myself eager to keep reading, despite the somewhat antiquated language. I wanted to see how things would unfold. You might think, "Well Dracula is old hat. I've seen many vampire movies. It's all the same." I'd tell you, not so. You should read this book if you're a vampire fan. You will find a resonance that is lacking in most of the modern vampire fare, with its classic setting, genuine characters, and the tangible essence of the unearthly evil of the vampire. And to think that Stoker wasn't quite as glutted on the rich milk of the vampire legends as us modern vamp fans are. Maybe that's why this book felt so authentic to me....more

"Children of the night what music they play" ; Jonathan Hawker hears those chilling, famous words from the inhuman appearing Count Dracula, in the remote Castle Dracula , Transylvania (Romania) . What started out as a simple real estate deal by an English solicitor and a foreign nobleman, becomes a blood sucking nightmare. The shell shocked Jonathan is imprisoned by the creepy Count, a " person" you wouldn't want to see in a dark alley on a moonless midnight walk. Three strange , bizarre , but v"Children of the night what music they play" ; Jonathan Hawker hears those chilling, famous words from the inhuman appearing Count Dracula, in the remote Castle Dracula , Transylvania (Romania) . What started out as a simple real estate deal by an English solicitor and a foreign nobleman, becomes a blood sucking nightmare. The shell shocked Jonathan is imprisoned by the creepy Count, a " person" you wouldn't want to see in a dark alley on a moonless midnight walk. Three strange , bizarre , but very beautiful women, brides of Dracula, the weird sisters, are in his room looking not quite real. When Dracula arrives also, they fade away.... into nothingness . Next day the Englishman can't decide if what he saw last night was a dream or fact... Either way the terrified Mr. Hawker escapes , as if his life depended on it, not caring about those eerie wolves , surrounding the building and disappears... Back in "civilized", safe England his fiance Mina on vacation in Whitby, is visiting her sick, good friend Lucy Westenra, she becomes very pale too, almost like ill Lucy who is losing blood, why ? Dr. Seward with the help of Dr.Van Helsing an expert in little known diseases, gives her Lucy, four transfusions, still she becomes weaker, and small punctures are spotted on Miss Westenra's neck, what can they be? A gruesome Bat is seen flying outside the window, lurking about waiting for who knows what... mists come into poor Lucy's room... Dr. Seward, the head of an insane asylum, has a star inmate named Renfield he likes keeping busy, by eating flies and spiders. Something unnatural is disturbing the disturb man. Renfield even attempts to kill the good doctor. On the continent the dazed Jonathan, is found in a hospital in Budapest, disclosing events, in his journal, read by Mina when they get him back home..Dracula is seen by Hawker in England, or was this man, the undead fiend , actually the Count? Better speak to Dr. Van Helsing, who they say has read about vampires and is an expert on the subject. This old Dutchman doesn't mind getting his hands dirty....The novel has inspired countless films, books and television shows...the endless flow of vampires stories more than a century after this classic was published.There is an obvious reason for this phenomenon...It still scares people ...in an entertaining manner... The historical figure was a Romanian Prince, Vlad 111 or Dracula, ( son 0f Dracul, the Dragon) 1431- 1476, known as the Impaler, an alias he acquired , and well deserved too...for his bloody treatment of captured soldiers... his many enemies, by the thousands...he is a national hero....more

No man knows till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves.

This seems to be my first time reading Dracula, and I LOVED IT. I say "seems" because I swear I've read it before. However, that would have been ages ago. Or a byproduct of seeing 10 million different Dracula interpretations before the age of 20. o.O So it was fresh and relatively new to me. I was surprised by the twists and turns. I thought I would be able to reasonably preNo man knows till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves.

This seems to be my first time reading Dracula, and I LOVED IT. I say "seems" because I swear I've read it before. However, that would have been ages ago. Or a byproduct of seeing 10 million different Dracula interpretations before the age of 20. o.O So it was fresh and relatively new to me. I was surprised by the twists and turns. I thought I would be able to reasonably predict the whole plot - and I couldn't.

Let's talk about major issues, because review space is limited and I believe everyone knows the basics of the plot. Evil vampire, blood-sucking fiend, lives in Transylvania, moves to London, and fucks with the wrong people. (Did NOT know who he was fucking with, as Riddick would say. LOL) You know the drill. Besides having 217 status updates - with many quotes continued in the comments, I had copious notes and also a running list of vocabulary words that I learned from Dracula. :)

I very much enjoyed this reading. :D You can tell from all my status updates and huge pile of notes. Sometimes I'd only read one or two pages in a day and just let them simmer inside me. I've been thinking about Dracula non-stop for about 11 days now. *evil grin* It was a perfect October and/or Halloween read. I had this absolutely jaw-droppingly gorgeous leatherbound B&N edition. Yum. It's been my constant companion these last 11 days. I didn't leave home without it! LOL

I sometimes think we must be all mad and that we shall wake to sanity in strait-waistcoats.

MAJOR ISSUES

We seem to be drifting to some terrible doom.

FEMINISM

Ah, ha ha ha. You knew I'd start with that, right? :D

This book is full of explicit sexist bullshit. Non-stop explicit sexist bullshit. Yes, I understand that this was 1897. Please don't lecture me in the comments about presentism.

I was surprised the sexism was so very blatant.

There is a lot of talk - by all characters, male and female, about "brave men" and "weak, poor women who are just frail creatures" who "can't stand strain" and should be shielded from the world and from the truth. Men are praised for being strong and brave and if a man is particularly brave, he's described as all man.

Let's talk about Mina Murray-Harker.

"Mrs. Harker is better out of it. Things are quite bad enough for us, all men of the world, and who have been in many tight places for our time; but it is not place for a woman, and if she had remained in touch with the affair, it would in time infallibly have wrecked her."

At first I was very angry with Mina. She holds sexist myths and sexist beliefs very close to her heart. She even blames Eve and the "apple" for women's "inherently sinful nature" at one point! I hate that shit. Disgusting.

I could not resist the temptation of mystifying him a bit - I suppose it is some of the taste of the original apple that remains still in our mouths - so I handed him the shorthand diary.

Both Mina Murray-Harker and Lucy Westenra are complete angels: good, sweet, pure, kind, "motherly" beings whom men (almost literally) worship. Lucy gets three marriage proposals in one day, and even the men she rejects swear undying devotion and fealty to her. Mina fares just the same. Every single male who comes into contact with these women prostrate themselves and declare their undying devotion. And not in a sexual way! There's a need to have a woman to protect and champion and care for. And she provides her services as a stenographer, a shoulder to cry on, and a cheerful and beautiful presence to boost the men's spirits.

Now, you may think that this book is a sexist piece of shit, but I was actually surprised and impressed with Mina. She's smart, capable, and features prominently in the book. Van Helsing praises her as having "a man's brain." She drives the coach, she figures stuff out before the men do - and she wants to be included in everything.

Which brings me to another point. A very large subplot here is the interaction of Jonathan Harker and Mina. Once privy to Jonathan's every thought and experience, Mina's position shifts when the other men encourage Jonathan to stop talking to Mina about vampires and the work they're doing to hunt Dracula completely, leaving her in the dark and cutting her out of their once coed meetings. Jonathan does it, convinced it's the right thing to do, although he feels inside that it's wrong somehow. This is the man who, just before proposing to Mina, states that there should be no secrets or hiding between spouses and gives her his journal so that she knows all.

"Wilhelmina... you know, dear, my ideas of trust between husband and wife: there should be no secret, no concealment."

He knows somewhere deep inside that making her an outsider in this is deeply wrong. But he does it - and is punished severely for it.

After that, Mina once again resumes an active role in the groups activities - as it should be, her fighting by their side. Even though it may have been unintentional on Stoker's part, I was overall pleased with how things turned out, especially for a book written in 1897.

Is this a feminist text?

NO. It is not. I don't want to give you the wrong idea, it is NOT. But how about I file it in the 'not as bad as I thought it was going to be' category on the topic of feminism? :)

BAND OF BROTHERS On thing that I loved about this book was the men and the men's relationships with one another. You have

Jonathan Harker - Solicitor who is the first in the novel to encounter Dracula. I thought he was a complete ninny and think Mina could have done much better in picking a husband, but oh well.

"I believe in my heart of hearts that [Morris] suffered as much about ----'s death as any of us; but he bore himself through it like a moral Viking. If America can go on breeding men like that, she will be a power in the world indeed."

Dr. John Seward - Psychologist who runs a mental asylum. Smarter and more badass than either Morris or Harker or Holmwood. Practical and straightforward. I always thought Mina should have married him instead of that nitwit Jonathan Harker. Ugh.

Arthur Holmwood - Rich. Engaged to Lucy Westenra.

"What can I do?" asked Arthur hoarsely. "Tell me, and I shall do it. My life is hers, and I would give the last drop of blood in my body for her."

Or what about this gem:

LUCY: I have an appetite like a cormorant, am full of life, and sleep well.

An appetite like a cormorant. Welp, that's a new one.

Arthur says I am getting fat.

Arthur can go fuck himself. What is this, James Bond? Fuck that shit.

Dr. Abraham Van Helsing - Badass name for a badass man. This was the only man I was interested in in the book. Intelligent, ruthless, gets shit done - but is still a kind, loving and polite person. He's a lawyer AND a doctor AND a vampire expert AND an expert at breaking-and-entering. This is who I would be making eyes at if I were in London at the time. ;) Good with consent, has a strong conscience, and has lots of experience. ;) Very attractive. ;)

ANYWAY. What is my point of listing all these men?

So you can discuss whether they are a.) nitwits or b.) worthy of kissing?

LOL No. I mean, obviously I am always going to discuss that. But, the reason I'm bringing up the men here is because of their close friendship. Holmwood, Morris and Seward served together in Korea, for crying out loud.

Excuse me?

Yeah, I know. It makes the book sound more like it's taking place in the 1960s or 1970s than the 1890s, but that makes it all the better. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The name's Plissken. Stoker making these men brothers-in-arms (in more ways than one!) adds a fine nuance to the novel. People who have fought together have a unique bond and trust with each other, and I think that makes these men in particular teaming up again once more - all the more potent. They unconsciously fall into their old rapport and positions, and, led by Van Helsing, make a stellar team.

Mina says that perhaps we are the instruments of ultimate good.

MONEYAs I was reading this book, I was thinking "rich people." *shaking my head* Then I was so surprised and pleased when Stoker chose to mention this not ONCE, but TWICE.

Thank God! this is the country where bribery can do anything, and we are well supplied with money. 88%

and

Oh, it did me good to see the way that these brave men worked. How can women help loving men when they are so earnest, and so true, and so brave! And, too, it made me think of the wonderful power of money! What can it not do when it is properly applied; and what might it do when basely used! I felt so thankful that Lord Godalming is rich, and that both he and Mr. Morris, who also has plenty of money, are willing to spend it so freely. For if they did not, our little expedition could not start, either so promptly or so well equipped, as it will within another hour. 93%

So it IS mentioned. Being brave and willing to die fighting vampires is one thing, but it's almost worthless without money for supplies, transportation, and constantly bribing people for information the way our heroes had to in this book. I'm so proud of Stoker for bringing this up. Good job!

BLOOD SUCKING VS. TRUE HORRORAnyone who knows me knows that I hate HATE erotic bloodsucking. However, I did not find the bloodsucking in this novel to be erotic at all, and therefore was undisturbed by it. I know that in 1897 this would be considered very erotic bloodsucking - but in 2015, to a pretty jaded vampire-fiction-reader, not so much. This was a relief to me, I was able to read the blood-sucking sections of the book without being too grossed out. It was more like animals feeding than anything sexual.

However, this book DID surprise me by making me genuinely horrified and grossed out. But it wasn't the bloodsucking, it was the vampire killing. I have a real thing, apparently, against mutilating and desecrating dead bodies. The scenes of "we're going to open up her coffin! We're going to stake her through the heart! Then chop off her head, cut out her heart, and stuff her mouth with garlic!" were making me ill. It was very horrifying and gross to me. I felt like they were violating the corpses and violating the very sanctity of death by doing this. I was rather shocked, I had no idea I even thought sanctity of death was a belief of mine until they were gleefully beheading cadavers. o.O

Anyway, that was the true horror of the novel in my eyes. Not the vampires.

CARNAL VS. PURE; LUCY & MINA VS. THE BRIDESOh my gosh, Stoker never shuts up about women being either pure angels of mercy or carnal wanton beasts that need to be destroyed. Madonna/whore complex TO THE MAX in this novel. Very frustrating.

When the Brides approach the men seductively, the men are all over that. Jonathan is ready to strip down and party when the brides show up kneeling in front of him and licking their lips seductively, and Van Helsing himself is not unaffected. They totally want those women on some level. But if it's Lucy or Mina or a woman who is supposed to be their "pure wife and mother stereotype," the men react with revulsion and disgust when lustful tendencies are shown. Good luck on Jonathan and Mina ever reproducing if Jonathan's reaction to Mina coming on to him is one of horror and revulsion. He probably only wants to have sex with all the lights off and missionary position, ten-thrusts-and-then-roll-off-her kind of thing. Probably with his eyes screwed shut the whole time. Poor Mina. I told her not to marry that ninny! And Lucy, goodness gracious. She was a bit sexual even as a "pure maiden," fantasizing about marrying three men at a time and shit, thank goodness she (view spoiler)[died (hide spoiler)] before having sex with Holmwood. I can't imagine she'd be happy in that marriage. He called her fat - what an asshole!

And you are going to be SO SICK of the word "voluptuous" by the end of the novel. Stoker uses this word 12 times in this novel and it gets seriously annoying. Sometimes it's multiple times on the same page. It's as if he doesn't know of another word to describe a sexual woman. Which is weird, because to me this more describes a certain body type than an attitude, but I looked it up in MW and it says that one meaning of the word is "giving pleasure to the senses," so I guess it works.

I am alone in the castle with those awful women. Faugh! Mina is a woman, and there is naught in common. They are devils of the Pit!

I shall not remain alone with them...

MODERN STYLEThis book is very readable, quotable, and enjoyable. I'm always rather hesitant to pick up a book considered a classic and written over a hundred years ago, but Stoker delivers. He uses a lot of modern wording and phrases, the book absolutely speeds along - it's never boring and he doesn't get bogged down describing the scenery for 10 pages.

That being said, I learned a lot of new words reading this: it was a veritable treasure trove of vocabulary. Here's my list:

Wow! Look at how much richer my vocabulary is now! I am a rich woman! Yay! *does a vocabulary dance*

I am too miserable, too low-spirited, too sick of the world and all in it, including life itself, that I would not care if I heard this moment the flapping of the wings of the angel of death.

PRO-CATHOLIC

Bless that good, good woman who hung the crucifix round my neck! for it is a comfort and a strength to me whenever I touch it. It is odd that a thing which I have been taught to regard with disfavour and as idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of help. Is that there is something in the essence of the thing itself, or that it is a medium, a tangible help, in conveying memories of sympathy and comfort?

This book is strongly pro-Catholic and Catholic doctrine and beliefs are presented as the truth. Notice Van Helsing's liberal use of the Host (Wafers) - he hands them out like candy. Holy water. Etc. Even noted Protestants like Harker are wearing crucifixes by the end of the novel. I don't think this is proselytizing, exactly, but there's definitely a strong Catholic flavor and undertone to the novel. "A sensible Protestant (Harker), how can he be caught up in all this primitive Catholic superstitious madness?!!?" is pretty much the entire first third of the book. Of course, Catholicism wins the day and provides Harker and his friends with the strength and tools to defeat evil, so ending the novel on a strong pro-Catholic note.

Some people claim that this book is anti-Semitic - I don't feel that it is. But one of the most enjoyable things about Dracula is that everyone reads the book differently and brings their own interpretations and experiences to the text. It's been claimed as anti-Semitic, queer, homophobic, sexual, anti-sex, feminist, anti-feminist, etc. etc. etc. Dracula and the people who fight him can be stand-ins for anything and anybody, apparently. Choose your own hot points after reading the novel. :) It's fun. You can see I chose "feminist" and "pro-Catholic," but - much like the Bible - you can twist and turn the text until it says what you WANT it to say. ;)

He might kill me, but death now seemed the happier choice of evils.

DRACULA IS A PETTY ASSHOLEI expected him to be the King of Vampires, not someone who enjoys playing mind games with poor nitwit Jonathan Harker. I mean, some of the things Dracula did in this novel were obviously just because he enjoys messing with Harker and tormenting him. *rolls eyes* Not exactly strong, commanding, Children-of-the-Night behavior, IMO.

ATROCIOUS DIALECTPlease beware that whenever any of the gang is talking to someone from the lower classes, the person will speak like this:

"These bans an' wafts an' boh-ghosts an' barguests and bogles an' all anent them is only fit to set bairns an' dizzy women a-belderin'. They be nowt but air-blebs! They, an' all grims an'signs an' warnin's, be all invented by parsons an' illsome beuk-bodies an' railway touters to skeer an' scunner hafflin's, an' to get folks to do somethin' that they don't other incline to do."

I have close to zero tolerance for this shit. I find it HIGHLY annoying. And what's even worse is that Stoker doesn't have to do it. Van Helsing speaks in a very distinct and "foreign" type of English, and yet Stoker never resorts to breaking down his words into atrociously spelled ones. Here's an example of how Van Helsing speaks:

"He throws no shadow; he make in the mirror no reflect... He has the strength of many in his hand... He can transform himself to wolf... he can be as bat... He can come in mist which he create... He come on moonlight rays as elemental dust.. He become so small... He can, when once he find his way, come out from anything or into anything, no matter how close it be bound or even fused up with fire..."

In this way, Van Helsing's distinctive voice was made clear - I could ALWAYS tell at once if he was speaking or narrating, but yet Stoker never writes out his accent in some bizarro way. I wish he'd done that for the working-class side characters!

Tl;dr - SO EXCELLENT. I am so happy that I own a copy, it is going to be read and re-read over and over again, I can tell you that. I was so happy and pleased with this book - and it's so hit-or-miss with classics that I had no idea what to expect.

I highly recommend this to anyone who has an interest in it.

"Dr. Van Helsing, are you mad?"...

"Would that I were!" he said. "Madness were easy to bear compared with a truth like this."

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha! Happy Halloween! :)

P.S. Dracula has a MUSTACHE. How come that's never shown in any film?!?!?!?!

P.P.S. Hey, I found something REALLY COOL. This is a National Geographic feature on a Romanian people living in the Carpathians and in the Transylvanian Alps etc. They are called the Csángó people.

You can read about them, see pictures of them, and hear them sing. It will really give you a more vivid and nuanced picture of what Jonathan Harker is seeing and hearing while traveling through Transylvania.

Make sure to check out the left side in order to access Photo Gallery and Multimedia (where you can hear them singing!). Also, Map.

Oh, and if you click (also on the left) Sights and Sounds: Experience life with Romania's Csángós - you can watch videos explaining stuff to you. WOW!...more

This was neither as bad as I assumed it would be or (nor?) as good as I eventually started thinking it could be. Much as I love receiving real mail, whether it's a letter, present, post card, or even just a book I ordered (Shucks, for me? Thanks, me!), the epistolary form just doesn't generally jiggle my jolly parts. This is especially true when a lot of what you're reading is the journals of a bunch of people you'd never even want to have passing conversations with, Dr. Van Helsing and Dr. SewaThis was neither as bad as I assumed it would be or (nor?) as good as I eventually started thinking it could be. Much as I love receiving real mail, whether it's a letter, present, post card, or even just a book I ordered (Shucks, for me? Thanks, me!), the epistolary form just doesn't generally jiggle my jolly parts. This is especially true when a lot of what you're reading is the journals of a bunch of people you'd never even want to have passing conversations with, Dr. Van Helsing and Dr. Seward being obvious exceptions. Regardless, this is one of those books that fall under my largely arbitrary and completely self-imposed "Must Read Before I'm Dead" list. In the midst of being asphyxiated by Proustian self-reckoning, I decided to take a break from being challenged and read something light. You know, like a Gothic novel about an immortal Vlad Tepes and his baby-eating whore-beasts.

It's funny what pop culture'll do to ya. I'd heard over and over again that this was like the Book of Genesis for the whole Twilight romancing the undead thing that weirds me out anew with each internet-drenched day. I took this "Bram Stoker's Hawt Vampires Makin' Tender Love" idea at face-value because I've seen the Coppola flick. Remember? A lovelorn Oldman, a sexually-repressed and reincarnated Ryder, absinth, slow-dancing in a castle with candles and string-music and shit, vampire nipple-sucking, orgasm-inducing illnesses, etc.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Turns out, the movie's entire romantic twist on the story was really just artistic license on roids, and all Mina is to Dracula is a leisurely Sunday brunch. There is straight-up NUUUUTHING saucy here, unless you count Mina and Jonathan Harker's relationship which is about as sexy as a box of Quaker Oats. I don't mean to insinuate that I was disappointed by this difference between book and screen as, needless to say, I have yet find myself reaching for the 19th-century literary fiction shelf when I feeeeeel like maaakin' lurrrrve. Still, I think it's a distinction which inquiring minds may appreciate knowing before committing to this occasionally exciting but largely sloggy story. The good parts were great, but the last 60-ish pages-- appropriately set on a bunch of fucking boats just inching their way along the river--moved so slowly, became so tedious that I just felt like screaming "Christ Almighty, Dracula, would you just eat these fuckers already?" If you want to know whether he does or not, you'll have to suffer through the end like I did. The first half is fun, though! (Twss!!)

Oh, and how dare you keep Tom Waits locked up in a cage. That's it, I'm calling your mother....more

I want to suck your blood!!What an amazing Gothic classic to listen too!

So, I finally did it. I took on the granddaddy of all vampire books. I decided to listen to this one instead of reading it due to a great recommendation from a friend on here.Thanks Terry!

I think this was a great decision to do since the characters in the audio book were excellent, especially Susan Duerden. Her voice was beautiful and mesmerizing as Lucy Westenra! All the narrators did such a great job with each character.

So, I finally did it. I took on the granddaddy of all vampire books. I decided to listen to this one instead of reading it due to a great recommendation from a friend on here.Thanks Terry!

I think this was a great decision to do since the characters in the audio book were excellent, especially Susan Duerden. Her voice was beautiful and mesmerizing as Lucy Westenra! All the narrators did such a great job with each character.

The reason that I didn’t rate this higher than 4 stars was Bram Stoker got a bit repetitive and tedious at times. Boxes of dirt was used a bit too much among other things in the story. I get it Stoker, he needed a place to lay his head. 😉🤣

But in all honesty, I’ve got to give him a break about the repetitive part since this was wrote in 1897. Did they even have editors back then?!Well done Stoker on writing such a well-loved book that has tested the age of time and public opinion. I mean, who doesn’t love vampires or at least has heard about them?!

He basically created the legend.Or did he? Bau ha ha ha! 😈😈

Fellow readers, if you’ve not read this or listened to the audiobook, get to it one day. Check it off the list. I don't think you'll be disappointed!...more

I turned the first page of this universally loved classic thinking that I was going to plunge into one of the world’s best love stories ever written, between Dracula and a lovely lady.

Say what? Love story? BOUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Right. I blame modern TV shows and movies for growing that thought into my mind over the years. Oh and this, too: (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]. You're one deceiving cover. Dracula is such a romanticized character nowadays that being exposed to his true – Bram Stoker styleI turned the first page of this universally loved classic thinking that I was going to plunge into one of the world’s best love stories ever written, between Dracula and a lovely lady.

Say what? Love story? BOUAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Right. I blame modern TV shows and movies for growing that thought into my mind over the years. Oh and this, too: (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]. You're one deceiving cover. Dracula is such a romanticized character nowadays that being exposed to his true – Bram Stoker style – self made me take a step back and reconsider my first opinion of him, which was mainly positive.

He’s not sexy. He’s not charming. And he’s certainly not your dream man. He won’t even care to whisper lovely words into your ear before taking hold of your mind and stealing your life away, AKA your blood. Who knows, maybe you’ll be lucky and, instead of slowly killing you, he’ll simply decide to turn you into a vampire. But, really, that’s just as bad.

Now that we’ve made that crystal clear, we can actually start talking about the book. This is probably the nastiest and creepiest classic I’ve ever read. It starts off with Jonathan Harker paying a visit to count Dracula who wants to buy a house; Jonathan is in charge of the paperwork. During his visit, Dracula is extremely courteous with him, but Mr. Harker quickly realizes that his host is not who he pretends to be.

That he’s an incarnation of the devil.

In this book, you will find vampires at their most clichéd form – which makes sense, since it was written in the 19th century, the period when the theme of vampirism prospered after its beginnings in literature.

A lot of telling and little conversation. This makes sense, since its 1/4 is in epistolary format and the rest a log of journals, but it will tire you at some point. From time to time, I strongly wanted to shake some conversation out of the characters; come on! Interact! Say something! I can’t deny, however, that the author had talent in writing.

The novel’s strength is in its atmosphere. I never even thought about closing the book and cursing it for its slowness, because I was always enticed by what was wafting through the air: secrets, mysteries, darkness, shadows, dementia, intensity, fear.

When the book is closed and you look at it, all you see is oldness and, depending on your edition, a cheese picture of a vampire drinking a woman’s blood. BUT, when you open it, you’re hit with one of the most intense atmospheres you’ll ever feel. Gothic, so, so gothic.

It’s not scary per se, unless you’ve ever been terrified of uncontrollable vampires, patients suffering from dementia or small squeaky animals, but it’ll make you shiver.

I got goose bumps just writing this review. It’s a must read, despite of my shameful 3-star rating.

I've grown to appreciate this more with age - especially as I've put more distance between myself and the time I studied Dracula at school. But I still think it's overrated. Dracula isn't nearly scary enough, Jonathan Harker is a wet mop of a protagonist, Mina is annoying and the best character [spoiler alert!] gets killed less than halfway into the book. .

Meh, it wasn’t as great as I was hoping. Sucks too because I love this beautiful little door stopper of a book. I hugged it often! Bastards! Making something so adorable that’s going in the trade in box. Sigh. I really loved the beginning, and don’t get me wrong, it was still good ....just not fantastic for me. I’m glad most everyone else in the world loved it 😃

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time, then write reports on whether or not I think they deserve the label

Book #13: Dracula, by Bram Stoker (1897)

The story in a nutshell:To best understand the storyline of Dracula, it's important to imagine yourself as a(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read a hundred so-called "classic" books for the first time, then write reports on whether or not I think they deserve the label

Book #13: Dracula, by Bram Stoker (1897)

The story in a nutshell:To best understand the storyline of Dracula, it's important to imagine yourself as an actual citizen of 1897 when the book was written, and then imagine one of your friends positing the following question: What if some of the horrible monsters mentioned in old Gothic literature from centuries past were actually real, and what if one of these ghouls decided one day to move to your hometown? Because that's the entire premise behind Stoker's original plotline, something easily forgotten in our modern times when even the 1800s look quaint and historic; that the real thrill of this novel to his contemporary fans was not just the premise of a blood-sucking vampire living somewhere in the bowels of eastern Europe, but that this vampire decides to pack up and move to 1897 England instead, mostly because after hundreds of years of killing, the people of his section of the world have finally caught on that he's an inhuman monster. That's what takes young goofy lawyer Jonathan Harker at the beginning of the book out to the wilds of rural Transylvania; it's his firm that's helping this reclusive member of the aristocracy transfer property and money and the like into the English legal system, and as the most junior member Harker is the one assigned to actually transport all the finished documents out to Dracula's spooky family castle in the middle of the Carpathian Mountains, for his final okay and signatures.

Ah, but the Count turns out to not be exactly what he seems, with creepier and creepier experiences finally culminating with an attack on Harker's life, the stealing of Harker's information by Dracula, and a whirlwind sea voyage to the pastoral English coastal village of Whitby, where Harker is originally from and where his plucky fiance Mina patiently awaits his return. (All of this, by the way, is told not through a traditional omniscient narrator and standard dialogue, but through a whole series of written documents such as diary entries, letters, newspaper clippings and more, coincidentally making Dracula one of the best-known examples of what's called an "epistolary novel.") As you can imagine, chaos soon ensues in Whitby, as the Count takes up residence at the local abandoned Medieval abbey on the edge of town and starts turning various young sexy girls into zombie slaves through repeated erotic bloodletting rituals, with no one there understanding what's going on because of course none of them living in a world yet where vampires are a well-worn cliche.

Thinking that his beloved has fallen under a rare disease, one of these Whitby residents calls in a friend of his from Amsterdam, the Indiana-Jones-like exotic-disease specialist and world traveler Abraham Van Helsing, who quickly realizes that this quaint seaside resort town in fact has a vampire on its hands. This leads to a whole series of action sequences, fight scenes, chase scenes, a trip back over to eastern Europe, and all kinds of other details I won't spoil; needless to say, things come to a "head" (ha ha) back at Dracula's Transylvanian castle, leading all to a nice old-fashioned "good guys definitively win" ending, perfect for the moralistic times in which Stoker lived.

The argument for it being a classic:Oh, there are all kinds of reasons to argue for Dracula being a classic; just for starters, it's a fine example of the Romantic/Victorian novel, not to mention one of those projects in the 1800s to first help establish the so-called "weird" genre (eventually leading us to such modern subgenres as horror, science-fiction, goth and more). It's also one of the first books, fans claim, to present a truly complex and unpredictable main female character -- Mina Harker, that is, who it could be argued is much more the hero of this tale than the globetrotting vampire-killer Van Helsing -- although none of this should really come as a surprise, given that author Bram Stoker's mother was the famous early feminist Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornely. Plus, it's one of the most adapted stories of all time as well; according to the Internet Movie Database, for example, over 100 films now exist with vampires as their main theme, with close to 650 movies now at least mentioning vampires in one way or another, all of them single-handedly because of Stoker and this particular novel*. And if all this wasn't enough, fans argue, the book remains a surprisingly thrilling one to this day, and surprisingly scary for a story that is now 111 years old and counting.

The argument against:Like many Victorian novels, critics claim, reading the 400-page Dracula anymore is bound to make you think of that line from The Simpsons, when Homer meets British comedian Ricky Gervais: "You take forever to say nothing!" That's not necessarily bad, just that it makes the book hard to enjoy as a simple piece of pleasure-reading; like many other books now reviewed for the CCLaP 100, it makes Dracula historically important and a book that genre fans should definitely tackle, but not necessarily a "timeless classic" that everyone should make their way through at least once before they die. Not to mention, there's that little matter of the 750 films that have now referenced vampires throughout the decades, the thousands of books and television episodes, the countless Dracula costumes worn to endless Halloween parties; when the details of a book become this much an ingrained part of our entire culture, critics claim, it makes trying to read the original book an exercise in frustration, in that you already know in your gut just about everything that's going to happen (not to mention every single surprise Stoker laid for his then-unsuspecting 1800s audience). Again, it makes the book no less important from a historical and scholarly point, but unfortunately just not a book that the general populace should feel like they need to tackle themselves.

My verdict:So let me mention this before anything else, that after four months now of regular Victorian-novel consumption because of this essay series, how surprisingly more modern and complex Dracula is than many of its contemporaries; it is a much more readable book than many others written in the late 1800s, featuring characters that sometimes are much more complex than usual for a moody Romantic tale, and with a shocking level of gore that has been quietly excised from the Dracula legend over the years by Hollywood and others. (For example, in the original novel they not only would pound stakes through the hearts of vampires to kill them, but shove garlic down their throats and cut off their heads, not for any supernatural reasons but to simply make sure the stupid things were actually dead.) Now, that said, as a fantastical novel from the Romantic period, Dracula certainly does ramble on in overly flowery language a lot more than we 21st-century readers are used to, and especially that self-satisfied blowhard Van Helsing -- yes, we get it, ya Dutch freak, you're a vampire expert, now shut up shut up shut up! And it certainly will hold almost no surprises to the modern reader either, at least regarding the fact that Dracula is a vampire and what exactly a vampire is (a major point of suspense to Stoker's original audience, in that Dracula isn't revealed to be a vampire in the novel until halfway through). Still, though, all in all the surprising strengths of this book ended up outweighing the expected weaknesses, which is why today I'm confidently declaring Dracula a classic that is definitely worth your time and attention.

Is it a classic? Yes

*Now, that said, please be aware that the vampire myth itself existed long before Stoker wrote about it in Dracula, simply that it was an obscure legend little known outside of the academic community; like I said at the beginning of this essay, that was Stoker's entire point, to take a supernatural concept from old Medieval literature and transport it into the "modern" world. In that sense, then, you can see how such projects from our times like Interview with the Vampire and Buffy the Vampire Slayer are actually a lot more faithful to Stoker's original premise than you might've realized. ...more

Almost every author will fall into one of two camps: the active, and the reactive. The active author looks at the world around them and decides to write about what they see. They sit down and think: "I'm going to write a story, the subtext of which will provide my analysis of Victorian sexual mores". They then construct the story around this theme, creating characters to show different aspects and constructing a plot which moves from general observations to specific insights.

Then there are the rAlmost every author will fall into one of two camps: the active, and the reactive. The active author looks at the world around them and decides to write about what they see. They sit down and think: "I'm going to write a story, the subtext of which will provide my analysis of Victorian sexual mores". They then construct the story around this theme, creating characters to show different aspects and constructing a plot which moves from general observations to specific insights.

Then there are the reactive authors. These tend to sit down to write a story without necessarily thinking about what the characters or story mean. Reactive authors will often still touch on the same themes as active authors, but instead of deliberate explorations, we get the author's gut reactions.

In the Late Victorian, one of the ideas that concerned many authors was the 'New Woman', who was a proto-feminist: she was active, controlled her own life, considered marriage a partnership instead of a master/subservient relationship, took pleasure in her own sexuality, and took part in traditionally male activities, like science, writing, and carousing.

Since Stoker is a reactive author, we do not get a deliberate analysis of the New Woman: we don't get a view of how she came about, of what drives her or differentiates her, or of what she might mean for the future of sexual politics. Instead, we get the reactive view: a certain thrill in the sexual freedom she represents, but in the end, she is condemned for being frightening--she is too difficult to control, she does not fit in.

The reactive view is nebulous, switching back and forth, never getting to the heart of the matter. Stoker does not include the New Woman because he understands her, but because she troubles him. This applies equally to his other recurrent themes: foreign vs. British identity, homosexual and other non-familial desire, scientific innovation, and ancient mysticism.

He includes these things not because he has some insight to reveal to the reader, but because they are concepts he cannot cease bringing up. They are a part of his world, and so he depicts them. These depictions shift and change with his reactions: homosexuality is first condemned, then pitied, then hinted at enticingly, then condemned again.

It is one of many things which Stoker desires to speak about, to puzzle through, something which both intrigues and unsettles him, which he cannot help but return to whenever he considers humanity. It is a habit formed by deep emotional connections and powerful memories. He is lost somewhere between the grotesque fall of his former friend Oscar Wilde and his lifelong worship of Wordsworth, whose celebration of homosexuality was an open secret.

Unlike Byron, Shelley, and Polidori, who inspired Stoker's tale of Gothic horror, Stoker is not certain what he thinks about the world he lives in. He does not have a philosophy or a voice, he is just a man trying to make it through a world which he cannot come to terms with.

It is not an ideal situation for his characters, who must shift with the movement of the tides. The only consistent personality is Van Helsing, who is too ridiculous and overblown to get lost in the text. The others all move from one extreme to the other: now subverting Victorian ways, now upholding them. The longer the story goes on, the more they become a collection of names, losing any distinct identity. Though Stoker works in broad strokes, the characters are not unsympathetic or stupid, but they are there to serve the story, wherever the winds may list.

Dracula, himself, is mostly absent: our heroes try to create an identity for him with their fears and assumptions, but none are very certain that their assumptions about Dracula are correct. They point out several times that their own violent hunt for the count is not terribly civilized or sane, and may not be any more justified than Dracula's own need to feed. What carries them along every time is their own self-righteousness--but coming from such scattered, unsure characters, it is hardly a convincing justification.

There is a lot of elbow room in reactive books, because there is no distinct heart to the story, no central philosophy driving it--which appeals to a certain breed of academic: Stoker touches upon most of the controversial topics of his day, but never creates any definitive view of them. Things are truly open for interpretation, and the critical works in this collection take full advantage.

First Dracula is homosexuality, then he represents a gender switch, then he is the capitalist monopoly which destroys fledgling British Utopian Socialism--and certainly, all these are unconscious influences on Stoker, but it is too much to say that Dracula is any one of them. He is a collection of fears, insecurities, desires, and popular topics thrown in by Stoker as they came to him.

Most of the critics seem to recognize that Stoker was no great thinker--just an average, well-off, educated man with some talent for flowing prose. This being the case, it feels silly for them to declare one argument or another fundamentally sums up the text. Many think a declarative style lends strength to a somewhat vague analysis, but as a New Historicist, I prefer the critic give the author only as much credit as seems warranted.

That isn't to say there isn't a great deal to be gleaned about the period from Stoker--indeed, his insecurity often reveals much more than he intends--but we can only learn as much as we might from talking to the average man of the period, as opposed to studying the expert opinion of an 'active' author.

As a story, it is entertaining, and the reader may be surprised at how different the original vampire is from the one we are now familiar with. There are some aspects of the book that I think would be interesting to see in film, but there are many other winding, long-winded passages which are better left out. The book goes rather slowly in the middle, maintaining roughly the same conflict with no new developments, and we are reduced from several different epistolary views to a more-or-less streamlined, neutral voice as the bland heroes grow more uniformly alike.

The conclusion is rather abrupt, and we never do get to a real showdown to match all the buildup of Dracula's many-faced evil, but this makes sense. Since Stoker is unsure precisely what he means to get at with his book, we can hardly expect him to create a viable, satisfying conclusion. The ending is certainly final, but it is not a decisive advance upon the book's themes, but a safe retreat to normalcy.

As all horror authors must, Stoker reaches for his own fears and insecurities to drive his story along, but he is not a self-searching man, so when he comes to the time for an ending, he instinctively rejects all of the vague things which unsettle him, trying to do away with them suddenly and violently, as befits a man who is out of ideas.

And so, the showdown the story deserved is absent--we never face Dracula in his own domain, under his own power. His dark castle remains shut up, and the mystery of who he was and what motivated him is left unconquered. Due to one of the many small errors which permeate Stoker's text, even the conclusion can be called into question.

Though we are assured that life has returned to normal, that things are now safe again for the straitlaced Victorian family--that homosexuality, feminine power, foreign influence, and pagan mysticism have all been destroyed--the assertion rings hollow, because Stoker never deals with any of these fears. He never manages to meet them with the right tools to overcome them.

In the end--and as we always suspected--Dracula is simply too pervasively perverse for the upright Victorian man to kill, because as an average Victorian man, Stoker simply doesn't know where to strike. Like too many conservative thinkers, he has cultivated his own naivete by avoidance until he cannot comprehend how to oppose his enemy.

So Dracula lives on in our world, growing in power, his vast array of subversive powers getting stronger with time. He withstands the full force of Victorian ideals, then outlasts them, watching them crumble. It shouldn't have been surprising: as Byron, Polidori, and Shelley all hinted, it wasn't Dracula who was the myth, but Victorian morality. It isn't heroic to oppose sex and death, it is tragic: strike them as hard and as often as you like, then watch them rise again. And so Dracula does....more

This iconic quote illustrates the unfathomable depth of Dracula’s evil. Not only does he have terrible taste in music (wolf metal, anyone?), he is keen to inflict his awful taste on poor Jonathan Harker who is already regretting his visit to Dracula’s castle. If the novel was set in the present day the Count probably would have put on “Yoko Ono’s Greatest Hits”. “Listen to her. Nice Japanese lady. What music she makes.”. At which poin“Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make.”

This iconic quote illustrates the unfathomable depth of Dracula’s evil. Not only does he have terrible taste in music (wolf metal, anyone?), he is keen to inflict his awful taste on poor Jonathan Harker who is already regretting his visit to Dracula’s castle. If the novel was set in the present day the Count probably would have put on “Yoko Ono’s Greatest Hits”. “Listen to her. Nice Japanese lady. What music she makes.”. At which point Jonathan, usually slow on the uptake, would have run away screaming.

One of these days I will be able to resist the urge to write stupid intros to my reviews. Today is not that day.

Dracula is one of the most frightening horror novels ever; or it would have scared the willies out of me if I did not already know the story in considerable details (I was a bit hazy about the last two chapters though). I should warn you that this review is full of spoilers; I wonder if there is anything left to spoil though, presumably you are well aware that the poor Count’s plan for turning all of London batty does not go according to plan. Having said that, even if you know the entire story but never read the book you ought to take the time to read it. Bram Stoker did a terrific job of creating a dark, brooding atmosphere, and writing some horrific and even erotic scenes that I imagine must have caused nineteenth century readers of delicate constitution to pass out.

I am surprised that Stoker did not organize the novel into three parts, something like this:

Part 1: Jonathan Harker’s visit to Dracula’s castle.Part 2: Dracula vamping it up in London.Part 3: Dracula buggers off back to Transylvania.

Dracula is a very well paced novel, with several memorable characters. Starting with the Count himself of course, in the first few chapters of the book I find him quite affable and generally very polite (bad taste in music notwithstanding). I cannot help but find Jonathan Harker a bit of an idiot. Especially in the scene when he is shaving with the aid of a mirror, Drac comes barging in and he notices the old vamp’s lack of a reflection; then Drac rudely throws his mirror out the window and later Jonathan writes this in his journal:

“It is very annoying, for I do not see how I am to shave, unless in my watch-case or the bottom of the shaving-pot, which is fortunately of metal.”

LOL! He is annoyed that he can’t shave after seeing the Count casts no reflection? He really needs to sort out his priorities. Even before the shaving incident he notices the Count has gross hairy hands with horrible long fingers and Wolverine fingernails, and he still sticks around to discuss the sights and sounds of London with the old dude! Miss Lucy Westenra’s fiancé Arthur Holmwood is equally slow on the uptake, he notices that Lucy’s teeth have been growing longer and sharper since she became ill, especially her canines which are particularly long and pointy. He passes this off as a symptom of her illness, presumably an unexpected dental side effect from whatever virus is causing her mysterious blood loss. Only Prof Van Helsing—the man with the plan from the Netherlands—seems to know his rear end from his elbow, but even he does a very poor job of protecting Lucy. He knows there is a vampire about and he still leaves the girl alone with her mom and goes off to get a good night sleep at his hotel or something.

Van Helsing reminds me of Agatha Christie’s Poirot or TV’s detective Columbo, an eccentric genius who likes to pass himself off as an amiable fool. His idiosyncratic uses of English grammar is probably more Poirot than Columbo though, with a touch of Yoda. Then we have Renfield with his intellectual conversations and fondness for insectile cuisine with extra toppings of rats. The ladies are equally memorable, with Lucy being entirely helpless to begin with until she becomes Lucy 2.0 the scary, sexy, badass vampire, better known to kids in London as “The Bloofer Lady”, Mrs. Mina Harker has much more self-reliance and fortitude, even after the ghastly “baptism of blood”; silly Drac messes with the wrong girl there. Stoker does tend to be somewhat misogynic with his assumption of what women are generally capable of, but on the other hand Mina is portrayed as strong and quite ingenious, an intellectual equal of Prof VH I would say.

As far as I know Stoker was a one-hit wonder, but if you are only going to have one hit, may as well make it an all-time great. While Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is a beautiful, poignant, and lyrical novel, it is less concerned with scaring the bejesus out of the readers, whereas Dracula is really quite horrific (in spite of my effort at lampooning it). If you enjoy horror fiction Dracula is a must-read.

• Contrary to what Francis Ford Coppola and other filmmakers would have you believe, Dracula never had any romantic feelings for Mina Harker, she is just another Happy Meal to him.

• Shame about Renfield, I think he would have liked an albatross on a stick.

• Dracula is sometimes called “Prince of Darkness” (in Hammer films) but did you know that he is also “Prince of Logistics”, he really organizes his traveling arrangements like a pro, and he booked a hotel for Jonathan Harker!

• The epistolary narrative format works quite well, but how can a bunch of people write diaries in practically the same style?

• My favourite film adaptation of Dracula is the 1977 one by the BBC, about 90% faithful to Stoker's book, and gave me the willies. Somebody uploaded the whole thing to Youtube, but these unauthorized uploads are often removed so I won't link to it....more

When I talked to my high school English teacher about my experience reading this, and how it compared to the racy Canterbury Tales, she made an erudite and astute observation, "Human nature doesn't change".

This changed the literary landscape of horror writing since. Sexual, sensual, creepy and still terrifying today.

This review, published in June 2015, is dedicated to a truly great man, Sir Christopher Lee, who passed away in 2015. Sir Christopher portrayed Dracula in the 1958 film Horror of DrWhen I talked to my high school English teacher about my experience reading this, and how it compared to the racy Canterbury Tales, she made an erudite and astute observation, "Human nature doesn't change".

This changed the literary landscape of horror writing since. Sexual, sensual, creepy and still terrifying today.

This review, published in June 2015, is dedicated to a truly great man, Sir Christopher Lee, who passed away in 2015. Sir Christopher portrayed Dracula in the 1958 film Horror of Dracula (with Star Wars co-veteran Peter Cushing).

Reviewing Dracula in this twilight age of loin-thrustingly pert young vampettes and vamparistas is like extolling the sexual allure of Clara Bow and Jean Harlow.

Dracula was the first “grown up” book I ever read. Hey, 12 year old PB, good choice! It made my pulse pound and my skin horripilated madly. But I do not think this would happen to a modern reader. Poor old recycled Dracula, rewritten, cartooned, parodied, Buffyfied, sliced, diced, crimped, carved, and ripped off in every one of a million ways, undead you were and undead you still are, if only as a Halloween costume and a footnote to an essay about Stephanie Meyer.

Given all of that, and given the high Victorian never use one word where a bucketful will do style of Mr Stoker, I still think it's worth five of my stars. It seethes with that wonderful sexual hysteria the Victorians loved writing about, from Wuthering Heights to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. They couldn't mention anything directly so they did their best with linguistic nodding and winking, and much mention of purity, and chasteness and its opposite unchasteness. Bosoms were okay, anything beneath waist level was absolutely not, until you got to shapely ankles and well-turned feet. So you can see they were gagging for it, and the writers were ferociously finding metaphors for writing about sex; and Bram Stoker found vampires. The strong sick pall of sexual dread which suffuses Dracula like a London pea-souper is seduction. This is what Stoker wants to write about - seduction and sexual enslavement, or, why do good girls fall for such very bad men? The Count is the embodiment of all seducers. He comes around at night and he gets into your fiance's bedchamber, so naturally you have to drive a big phallus right through his heart. I get that. Bram Stoker is practically frothing about all of this. Bram Stoker invents most of the trappings of vampires right here and throws in a handful of the most outrageous scenes (three beautiful young female vampires in the dead of night overheard squabbling about who should get the baby they have got in the bag they're holding up; three men all giving one woman a blood transfusion using only a rubber hose; the Count scrabbling up a castle wall as fast as a man could run, all great stuff).

I say read Bram Stoker, read Let the Right One In, and step delicately around Twilight....more

He was born Abraham Stoker in 1847 at 15 Marino Crescent – then as now called "The Crescent" – in Fairview, a coastal suburb of Dublin, Ireland. His parents were Abraham Stoker and the feminist Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornely. Stoker was the third of seven children. Abraham and Charlotte were members of the Clontarf Church of Ireland parish and attended the parish church (St. John the Baptist loHe was born Abraham Stoker in 1847 at 15 Marino Crescent – then as now called "The Crescent" – in Fairview, a coastal suburb of Dublin, Ireland. His parents were Abraham Stoker and the feminist Charlotte Mathilda Blake Thornely. Stoker was the third of seven children. Abraham and Charlotte were members of the Clontarf Church of Ireland parish and attended the parish church (St. John the Baptist located on Seafield Road West) with their children, who were both baptised there.

Stoker was an invalid until he started school at the age of seven — when he made a complete and astounding recovery. Of this time, Stoker wrote, "I was naturally thoughtful, and the leisure of long illness gave opportunity for many thoughts which were fruitful according to their kind in later years."

After his recovery, he became a normal young man, even excelling as an athlete (he was named University Athlete) at Trinity College, Dublin (1864 – 70), from which he graduated with honours in mathematics. He was auditor of the College Historical Society and president of the University Philosophical Society, where his first paper was on "Sensationalism in Fiction and Society".

In 1876, while employed as a civil servant in Dublin, Stoker wrote a non-fiction book (The Duties of Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland, published 1879) and theatre reviews for The Dublin Mail, a newspaper partly owned by fellow horror writer J. Sheridan Le Fanu. His interest in theatre led to a lifelong friendship with the English actor Henry Irving. He also wrote stories, and in 1872 "The Crystal Cup" was published by the London Society, followed by "The Chain of Destiny" in four parts in The Shamrock.

In 1878 Stoker married Florence Balcombe, a celebrated beauty whose former suitor was Oscar Wilde. The couple moved to London, where Stoker became business manager (at first as acting-manager) of Irving's Lyceum Theatre, a post he held for 27 years. The collaboration with Irving was very important for Stoker and through him he became involved in London's high society, where he met, among other notables, James McNeil Whistler, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In the course of Irving's tours, Stoker got the chance to travel around the world.

The Stokers had one son, Irving Noel, who was born on December 31, 1879.

Bram Stoker died in 1912, and was cremated and his ashes placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium. After Irving Noel Stoker's death in 1961, his ashes were added to that urn. The original plan had been to keep his parents' ashes together, but after Florence Stoker's death her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of Rest.See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Stoker...more